D&D (2024) Sharp shooter/Great Weapon Mastery

[Chaosmancer]

I didn't say we should be wary of teamwork. I said I am wary of rules that provide benefit with no cost/risk. This example happens to involve teamwork.

You and I apparently have completely divergent ideas of what makes a game fun. Or even a game. So there's no "we" here.

But you aren't really defining anything in a useful way. The rules for stabilizing the dying with a roll provide a benefit (stablizing the character) with no cost and no risk, correct? If not correct then an action is a cost, and therefore the help action has a cost, it is an action. Perhaps the risk of the stabilzing roll is the chance of failure? Well, even with advantage there is a chance for failure, so now we potentially have a cost and a risk.

However, this doesn't seem to be your argument. You seem to want there to be more. It seems to me that you want there to be relatively no cost or risk to using skills, only a cost/risk to assisting someone in using a skill, in aiding them. But that leads directly into teamwork. If two people using their skills together incurs a greater cost or a greater risk than a single person doing it, then you are simply discouraging teamwork. Because then you have to weigh whether or not working as a team is worth the cost. Which seems strange in a game that is supposed to be a team game, and already struggles to fulfill that.


Maybe I would understand if you gave some examples? What types of costs or risks do you think are appropriate for two people working together to overcome a challenge?

 

[Bill Zebub]

However, this doesn't seem to be your argument. You seem to want there to be more. It seems to me that you want there to be relatively no cost or risk to using skills, only a cost/risk to assisting someone in using a skill, in aiding them.

100% incorrect. I don't expect you (or anybody) to remember what other posters say in various threads, but I have always been a very active proponent of ability checks (and skills, where applicable) being used in exactly one situation: when the player declares an action in which the outcome, as determined by the DM, is uncertain, and there is a cost to failure.

For example, if somebody wants to pick a lock, and there's no time pressure, and if they fail the situation is unchanged (that is, whatever is locked is still locked) then I don't call for a roll. It's either not possible for them to pick the lock, or I just rule that eventually they succeed. Or maybe the cost of failure is that they break the lock, leaving evidence of what they have done (if the situation is such that this would be a bad thing.)

So, no, I don't want there to be no cost or risk to using skills.

The spare the dying cantrip is an interesting case. It's true there's no cost to using it, unless what you are doing is giving up your turn to cast it. That's a cost. If the combat has ended and the unconscious player is still making death saves...then, yeah, in that case there's no cost. On the other hand, in my experience that's such an uncommon scenario that spare the dying isn't high on my list of annoying cantrips. Unlike guidance, which tops the list.

Maybe it's ok to have a zero cost cantrip that is just the right thing in very rare circumstances. In that cast the "cost" is the one you alluded to earlier: you chose that infrequently used cantrip over a more generally useful one, so you should get to save the day for free every now and then. But when a cantrip is incredibly useful, it's not much of a cost to choose it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, I understood that. Your argument makes sense. The trouble is, they made this change because of all the situations on the other side where Help only makes sense if the helper knows what they're doing. I'm sure you or I (or someone else) could come up with as many (if not more) scenarios where that would be true as you managed to do here for your case.

Right, which is why I like the change to the rule that says "The DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible." This covers those instances when it doesn't make sense. If it only makes sense in this scenario that the person aiding has to know what they are doing, the DM can kibosh it. I'm far happier with DM fiat stepping in and saying "Sorry, this doesn't make sense." rather than having to put them into the situation of "Well, the rules say no, but this makes sense, so I'll allow it."

Which is more common? I guess it depends on playstyle, a bit, and also on how helpful you want the Help Action to be. With the changes to Guidance, it seems like they might be trying to make additional bonusses (like extra d4's and Advantage) a little rarer than they can be in a lot of games. Perhaps full-on advantage for Help is a little much for just an extra pair of hands. Perhaps it's not so much that the extra hands don't help narratively (even if they don't help mechanically) but that they don't help enough to grant *advantage (a big bonus).

I agree with you that is what they seem to be doing, I'm just not sure it is a good change. It seems to be... I don't think "siloing" is the correct term, but it seems to be pushing the game towards a model where only one person is involved in the skill check most of the time.

In a way, this is a solution to the problems with the Inquisitive Rogue, who has a level 9 ability to give them advantage on Investigation checks, or the general power of familiars to grant advantage on skills. But I think it ends up making it even harder to encourage group play. If you don't have a skill proficiency you think applies, you just tune out of the situation, because you cannot in any way assist. Having Guidance means you only are going to pay attention until you use it once. Bardic inspiration is far more limited. It feels like moving from an (admittedly not perfect) paradigm of "okay team, how can we do this" to "I work alone"

And I don't think that's a good direction.

See, here you are advocating for Advantage being easy to get. Any hands will do.

Out of curiosity, do you use the optional Flanking rules? I don't, because in spite of feeling that multiple attackers (I've experienced it IRL) is a dangerous place to find yourself in, I think that Advantage is too good. Besides, you're pretty much screwed in D&D when you're surrounded anyhow.

I've used them before. Not using them currently but I've always enjoyed how they encourage people to think about where their allies are and how to work together with them.

Notably, this brings up the second portion of the Help action. In combat, Help is unchanged. Have an action, use it, advantage on an attack. No need for an additional restrictions. It is only in skills that it has become more limited.

You're mistaken here. It says "Choose one of your Skill Proficiencies and one ally who can see or hear you. You give Advantage to the next Ability Check that ally makes with the chosen Skill.

Ah, mixed up who was choosing which skill.

So, yeah, now it is only possible to get advantage with two trained individuals working together. I really don't like this.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Maybe I would understand if you gave some examples? What types of costs or risks do you think are appropriate for two people working together to overcome a challenge?

I didn't answer this, but I don't know what the answer is here. I don't have a better solution that works within the design parameters of D&D. I think requiring proficiency is a step in the right direction for the reasons I mentioned upthread.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Best way, would be stating: the DM decides if you need proficiency in the chosen skill to help with the task.
But that would earn criticism from mother may I critics...

Maybe: if you help, you need to make an ability check against DC - 10 if you lack the relevant skill proficiency.

This way most cases would be covered. Helping in stabilizing? DC is 10. So the helper needs to make a check vs DC 0. Assisting with balance?
If you are standing on Ice yourself, making the check vs DC 5 might be feasible... and so on.

But I prefer: the DM decides if help is possible or a proficiency or a check is needed to assist.

I have been wondering if it makes sense to have a second roll for the Help action, maybe a flat DC 10. It would slow things down, but it would make it harder for people give advantage.

Then again, you have to consider that versus just having both people roll and add their own modifiers. We all know how easy it is to slip into "can I try?" where the entire party just cycles through attempting the same skill check.

 

[Bill Zebub]

1) Sometimes it makes sense that any second pair of hands will help.
2) Sometimes it only makes sense that a skilled person could help.

Which is more common?

From my p.o.v. it's not about what's more common or, god forbid, realistic, but simply what makes playing the game require more thought and more non-obvious decisions.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It is also true that fighting two people front and back is a lot harder than two people in front of you...but there is no flanking.

1) Flanking is an optional rule
2) The Help action in combat can represent this

Fighting from high ground is also a benefit in combat....but there is no bonus.

Likely because it depends. High ground is great... unless your opponent is 10 ft tall. In fact, rules for "high ground" would basically just give Giants a permanent advantage against medium sized creatures. A far more likely reason to exclude them.

Fighting with a large backpack of crap makes it much harder to fight someone...but there is no penalty for all of the stuff PCs carry.

There is an optional rule for that.

There are LOTs of things in the game that aren't tracked in the spirit of streamlining and providing a good model for the game. Now I can respect you hate this one, but it makes just as much sense as anything else not tracked or recorded in the game.

See, if this was the DnD Next playtest, I could agree with you. Problem is, the game has been running for eight years with this being something tracked and recorded. Them changing it now seems far more like trying to nerf the system, not that they have decided it doesn't have a big impact.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have been wondering if it makes sense to have a second roll for the Help action, maybe a flat DC 10. It would slow things down, but it would make it harder for people give advantage.

Then again, you have to consider that versus just having both people roll and add their own modifiers. We all know how easy it is to slip into "can I try?" where the entire party just cycles through attempting the same skill check.

This was the 3.5 method.
Currently I think the "DM decides" rule would be best however.

 

[Chaosmancer]

100% incorrect. I don't expect you (or anybody) to remember what other posters say in various threads, but I have always been a very active proponent of ability checks (and skills, where applicable) being used in exactly one situation: when the player declares an action in which the outcome, as determined by the DM, is uncertain, and there is a cost to failure.

For example, if somebody wants to pick a lock, and there's no time pressure, and if they fail the situation is unchanged (that is, whatever is locked is still locked) then I don't call for a roll. It's either not possible for them to pick the lock, or I just rule that eventually they succeed. Or maybe the cost of failure is that they break the lock, leaving evidence of what they have done (if the situation is such that this would be a bad thing.)

So, no, I don't want there to be no cost or risk to using skills.

This is splitting hairs. The player faces no cost or risk to declaring that they pick a lock. It is only when there is a meaningful failure state that you roll, but the action has no inherent cost or risk.

However, even if I grant you that these skills have an inherent risk because there would be no roll without that risk, then I must ask why that same risk doesn't cover the help action? You can't grant advantage to a roll without a roll taking place, so whatever consequence of failure the person making the skill check faces, the person granting advantage to that skill check faces. Why is that not enough for the Help Action, but it is enough for the use of the skill itself?

The spare the dying cantrip is an interesting case. It's true there's no cost to using it, unless what you are doing is giving up your turn to cast it. That's a cost. If the combat has ended and the unconscious player is still making death saves...then, yeah, in that case there's no cost. On the other hand, in my experience that's such an uncommon scenario that spare the dying isn't high on my list of annoying cantrips. Unlike guidance, which tops the list.

Maybe it's ok to have a zero cost cantrip that is just the right thing in very rare circumstances. In that cast the "cost" is the one you alluded to earlier: you chose that infrequently used cantrip over a more generally useful one, so you should get to save the day for free every now and then. But when a cantrip is incredibly useful, it's not much of a cost to choose it.

Okay but.... I've not mentioned Spare the Dying once? I was referring to the DC 10 medicine check that anyone can make at any time. There is no cost to that, and no risk except failure. And if failure is enough of a risk to make the roll possible, why is it not enough to allow someone to spend a second action to grant advantage on that roll?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is also true that fighting two people front and back is a lot harder than two people in front of you...but there is no flanking.

Fighting from high ground is also a benefit in combat....but there is no bonus.

Fighting with a large backpack of crap makes it much harder to fight someone...but there is no penalty for all of the stuff PCs carry.


There are LOTs of things in the game that aren't tracked in the spirit of streamlining and providing a good model for the game. Now I can respect you hate this one, but it makes just as much sense as anything else not tracked or recorded in the game.

True, and a lot of that I don't like. And I don't like finding more things to "streamline" even more.